| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2003 12:50:04 AM · #1 |
I have noticed that you can right click a photo and save it from this site. Most of the other sites I visit have copy protected the photos so no one can use them without consent. I also noticed that you have a link to purchase photos, but why would someone pay for what they can take for free? Perhaps this is something that should be addressed in the programming of this site. There is a site you can visit to see what I am talking about: //www.betterphoto.com.
Right click any photo and watch what happens.
Wondering how everyone else feels about the fact that thier photos can be copied by anyone visiting the site.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 12:58:09 AM · #2 |
| Yes the photos can be copied but at 640x480 you cant print anyting decent bigger than like 3x4. So you really cant sell anything you save. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 01:10:39 AM · #3 |
FYI, any photo you see on your screen has already been downloaded to your computer. It is possible to save a photo from betterphoto.com...but that's besides the point.
The images are copyrighted and it is stated so throughout the site. Just because it's possible to save an image for one's own use doesn't make it legal! That's like saying since I can walk out of a store with something in my pocket for free, why should I pay for it?
Message edited by author 2003-07-12 01:20:07.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 01:13:44 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by byetko:
Yes the photos can be copied but at 640x480 you cant print anyting decent bigger than like 3x4. So you really cant sell anything you save. |
Depends on the printer I can print 640 x 480s and get a very good 8 x 10 |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 01:17:46 AM · #5 |
Any image that appears on the screen can also be "screen captured" at the touch of a button on the keyboard, then pasted in a tool like Photoshop...
it's part of posting on the internet.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 02:57:53 AM · #6 |
Personally, if I had a photo that I thought was really worth "the big bucks", I'd likely not enter it in a contest here.
This is a public forum, and the public is made up of all kinds of people with various ideas about what is ethical and what isn't. If you have something that is really worth selling for exclusive use, then don't dilute it by posting it on the internet.
Me, I'm just a bozo with a camera. I'm not likely to capture something that I would be all that worried about protecting.
PS: If you are using the current Netscape you get the javascript message that you cannot save the picture and then Netscape lets you save it anyway. So... BetterPhoto is only protecting you from IE users.
Message edited by author 2003-07-12 03:02:30. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 05:58:23 AM · #7 |
It shouldn't really matter if the image is copy protected or not - the copyright laws are still in place, and people shouldn't copy them. ANd if you do find out about it, you can sue them for an extortionate amount of money.
When that has been said, I am strongly against using javascript to prevent right-clicking. There are SO many ways around this that it is pointless, and merely annoying for those of us who right-click with good reasons (open link in new window, printing, viewing page source) etc.
I don't know if you have noticed, but most photography portfolios on the net - arguably containing the photographer's best photographs - are posted without these kinds of restrictions.
 - haje
Message edited by author 2003-07-12 05:58:35.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 10:56:29 AM · #8 |
| I really don't like the right-click blockers for the reasons given, and there are several ways around them in IE anyway, if someone was going to ignore the legalities and ethics of it. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 11:35:18 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
It shouldn't really matter if the image is copy protected or not - the copyright laws are still in place, and people shouldn't copy them. ANd if you do find out about it, you can sue them for an extortionate amount of money.
- haje |
You can only sue them IF you have already registered the work with the copyright office. You will probably NOT be able to recover much above actual economic damages (i.e. you're unlikely to extort huge punitive damages).
For the truly paranoid or very careful, we should consider expanding the list of allowable filters to include DigiMarc watermarking of photos.
People download photos from here for a variety of legitimate (i.e. personal, educational fair use) purposes. When I had a suggestion for how someone's photo could be improved, it was much easier to download it, do what I wanted, and post the result, than it would have been to describe my (untried) technique. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 01:14:21 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You can only sue them IF you have already registered the work with the copyright office. |
Perhaps that is true in the US - I am not too familiar with US copyright law. But I would like to see anyone try that with my images (US or not) - I always keep copies of the originals, and they would have a very hard time explaining how I got a hold of dated original files, along with files from the same photo shoot, taken with my camera (which marks the pictures with my name in the EXIF data, for good measure).
For that reason, I have not really been bothered registering my images.
I have been in the situation that someone stole a batch of images once. I threatened going to court, but we settled out of court, for quite a handsome amount per image. (this was in Norway).
- haje
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 01:31:46 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
I am strongly against using javascript to prevent right-clicking. There are SO many ways around this that it is pointless, and merely annoying for those of us who right-click with good reasons (open link in new window, printing, viewing page source) etc. |
Like spoken from my mouth |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 02:20:58 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You can only sue them IF you have already registered the work with the copyright office. |
Perhaps that is true in the US - I am not too familiar with US copyright law ... I have been in the situation that someone stole a batch of images once. I threatened going to court, but we settled out of court, for quite a handsome amount per image. (this was in Norway).
- haje |
Yes, it is a technicality in US law. You can register after the infringement occurs; you just have to do it before you actually file a lawsuit. However, as you point out, not having it registered in no way precludes you (or, preferably your attorney) from threatening legal action ... settling for a handsome royalty sounds much better than going to court anyway.
For the best sources of copyright info in the US go to
US Copyright Office
Nolo Press |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 11:56:06 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
I always keep copies of the originals, and they would have a very hard time explaining how I got a hold of dated original files, along with files from the same photo shoot, taken with my camera (which marks the pictures with my name in the EXIF data, for good measure). |
The EXIF data doesn't mean jack because it can be removed and/or altered in less time then it takes to tie your shoelaces. That's why your ONLY protection is copyrighting it because that's the only legal method of establishing WHEN the photo/image/artwork became the property of someone, since the date is on file in some government office somewhere. Obviously if your work is widely known and has been published, that is also enough proof that it's your work, etc.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2003 12:27:37 AM · #14 |
The exif data does mean something !
If needed you can find out if the exif data has been tampered with, pretty extreme and i doubt anyone here will have to do that.
the photos are available are only 640x480, not big enough to worry about!
Chrisw123 are you still around...are you still living in that disillusioned world?...LOL ;-)
Message edited by author 2003-07-13 00:32:24. |
|
|
|
07/13/2003 06:53:18 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
The EXIF data doesn't mean jack because it can be removed and/or altered in less time then it takes to tie your shoelaces. |
True, but that was only part of my argument. If you take a look, I was talking about the original files.
If anyone manages to present an image that is 640 wide as an original file (or even the ones from my website, which are 800 across), use it for something, and survive a few rounds in court with me, I would be truly amazed. They would have to claim I stole their original files etc, and come up with some way of how I did that. Besides, I know my camera has a dirty little weakness (one of the pixels along the top left is broken) - they would have a hard time explaining how the original file in question has the exact same blemish as the more than 16.000 other originals I have stored.
The same goes for most photographers, I reckon.
Of course, chances of me actually FINDING an image that someone stole from me is far less.
I guess what it all comes down to is how paranoid you are. And if you are REALLY paranoid, I would suggest hiding your pictures from everyone on a permanent basis.
- haje
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 07:31:00 PM EDT.
- haje
